More On The 'Historical-Grammatical' Method

by Nate Merit 9 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Nate Merit

  Although Protestants, Evangelicals and Fundamentalists use and defend the historical-grammatical method of Bible interpretation, they need to realize it has a Fundamental (pun intended) Flaw. The NT writers do not make use of this method when they quote the OT. If the literal context is so indispensable to rightly dividing the word of truth, why did the New Testament authors not follow this method? Are they not our Examples in correct use of the OT? Indeed they are, so we should pay close attention to their use of the OT.

  The very first incidence of the OT being quoted in the NT has no connection to the actual Old Testament context. In fact, as one studies the use of the OT in the NT, one becomes hard-pressed to find a single incidence of the NT writers using the historical-grammatical method. I'll give a handful of examples.
  
  Matthew 1:22,23 and Isaiah 7:14

  "Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel," which translated means, "God with us.’ "
  (Matthew 1:22,23)
  
  Now compare Matthew’s quotation of Isaiah 7:14 and the actual context of the quotation

  "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken. The LORD will bring on you, on your people, and on your father’s house such days as have never come since the day that Ephraim separated from Judah, the king of Assyria. In that day the LORD will whistle for the fly that is in the remotest part of the rivers of Egypt and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria." (Isaiah 7:14-18)

  The actual historical-grammatical context of Isaiah’s prophecy concerns the destruction of Rezin and Pekah, two gentile kings. In a nutshell, Isaiah tells King Ahaz that "For this reason the sovereign master himself will give you a confirming sign. Look, the young lady over there is about to conceive and will give birth to a son. You, young lady, will name him Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14, New English Translation) This is a marvelously good translation, giving an excellent feel in English of the actual historical-grammatical sense of the Hebrew text.

  Verse sixteen nicely limits the actual contextual meaning of this verse by ‘gluing’ it to Rezin and Pekah. Verse eighteen tells us that Egypt and Assyria will bring about the downfall of these two kings. Egypt and Assyria have nothing whatever to do with the conception and birth of Jesus. That is, if one is going to follow the historical-grammatical sense of the OT.
  
  Matthew 2:15 and Hosea 11:1

  "He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son." (Matthew 2:15) "When Israel was a youth I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son." (Hosea 11:1)
  
  The prophecy in Hosea is even more specific than Isaiah 7:14 as to what it’s actual historical-grammatical context and time-frame are. Hosea is referring quite obviously and plainly to the Nation of Israel and their Egyptian Exodus, an event in Hosea’s past! There is nothing here about any future Messiah! That is, if one is going to follow the historical-grammatical method, which the NT writers did not.
  
  Matthew 2: 17-18 and Jeremiah 31:15-17

  "Then what had been spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: ‘A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children; and she refused to be comforted, because they were no more.’ " (Matthew 2:17,18)

  "Thus says the Lord, ‘A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; She refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are no more.’ Thus says the Lord, ‘Restrain your voice from weeping and your eyes from tears; for your work will be rewarded,’ declares the Lord, ‘And they will return from the land of the enemy. There is hope for your future,’ declares the Lord, ‘And your children will return to their own territory.’ " (Jeremiah 31:15-17)
  
  The Nation of Israel has been dispersed among the gentiles. That’s the literal historical-grammatical context. Jeremiah tells the Israelites ‘Restrain your voice from weeping and your eyes from tears; for your work will be rewarded,’ declares the Lord, ‘And they will return from the land of the enemy.’ "
  
  I will give you, the reader, $10,000 if you can find a reference to a slaughter of children due to the birth of the Messiah in these verses from Hosea. There is nothing here about any slaughter of children at all! Period! On the contrary, the tears that are shed in this verse will give way to happiness because Israel will return to the land. That is the literal historical-grammatical context. Again Matthew ignores it.
  
  John 13:8
  
  Jesus the Christ also ignores and violates the Fundamentalist Credo of the literal historical-grammatical method. Read his quotation of Psalm 41: "I do not speak of all of you. I know the ones I have chosen; but it is that the Scripture may be fulfilled, ‘He who eats my bread has lifted up his heel against me.’" (John 13:18)

  Now compare the way Jesus used that verse with its actual historical-grammatical context:

  "As for me, I said, ‘O Lord, be gracious to me; heal my soul for I have sinned against You.’ My enemies speak evil against me, ‘When will he die, and his name perish?’ And when he comes to see me, he speaks falsehood; His heart gathers wickedness to itself; when he goes outside, he tells it. All who hate me whisper together against me; against me they devise my hurt, saying, ‘A wicked thing is poured out upon him, That when he lies down, he will not rise up again.’ Even my close friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me. (Psalm 41:4-9)
  
  This verse, in it’s actual literal historical-grammatical context cannot possibly be referring to the Christ. Read verse four: "As for me, I said, ‘O Lord, be gracious to me; Heal my soul, for I have sinned against You.’ Did the Christ sin? No. Ergo, this verse in its literal historical-grammatical sense is not about the Christ, the Messiah.
  
  Matthew, Mark, Luke, John Jesus, Paul, Peter all ignore the historical-grammatical method. Were they alive today, Fundamentalist 'scholars' would be doing loop-de-loops and banging their Bibles against their heads in frustration over the way the NT writers use the OT!
  
  Why would the NT writers say these verses were ‘fulfilled’ when the verses in question aren’t actually predicting anything? This problem doesn’t just go away if you ignore it, or continue to chant the historical-grammatical mantra. It’s there every time the OT is quoted in the NT. Either the historical-grammatical method has to go, or the NT writers have to go! One or the other! I chose a long time ago to ditch the historical-grammatical method for this very reason. Jesus didn’t use it. Paul was unaware of it. John knew nothing of it. Peter paid no heed to it. No NT writer did.
  
  So, what’s the alternative? A number of 'solutions' have been proposed, some better than others. I opted to follow Paul in the allegorical method. It makes spiritual sense to me in light of having learned that the Bible is a marvelous book of Mythology. Perhaps one of the other alternatives works for you.
  
  Post your thoughts, if you like. I'd love to read them. There's no need to go postal on me.
  
  Nate
• 

  Shining One

  Hi Nate,
  The prophets fulfilled a specific purpose in scripture. Prophecy often has immediate and secondary fulfillments that are revealed in later scripture. This is why the Bible is called a progressive revelation. The apostles were revelators and thus, speaking through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit they applied previous prophecy to the events of Jesus' day. The scriptural record is complete. There are no more revelators. There are only orthodox and heretics.
  Rex
• 

  stev

  I am not able to address how the NT writers use the OT. There are books by authors who are expert in this field, which I am not.
  It is apparent that people on this list have different views on religion and the Bible, and therefore it is not likely that there will be agreement on how to interpret the Bible.

  But I think the historical-grammatical method is a good place to start for anyone in interpreting the Bible.
  What did the author intend to mean,
  and what would the original audience have understood?
  I think those are good questions to ask no matter what book is being read.

  There are dangers to the allegorical method, and it is best to use with caution.
  Otherwise it can lead to excess. It can lead to flights of fancy and speculation, idiosyncratic notions, where there is no limit or control on what the interpreter can see in the Bible.
  The BIble can become silly puddy in the hands of an allegorist. The Bible can be made to say what ever the interpreter wants it to say.
  It is not so bad if the person is honest and knows that this is what they are doing, that they are attaching a private meaning different than the intended meaning of the author.
  It can be harmful when a preacher does it frequently, and thinks God intended it to have that meaning, and the his followers think that this intepretation is inspired by God. Then it could lead to spiritual abuse and error.
  On the other hand, it is likely that there is more than one sense or meaning to the Bible, and that it can be read at different levels, and has different layers of meaning.
  Northrop Frye, who was a literary critic, wrote books on the Bible, and how the Bible has literary archetypes and repeated themes such fall-redemption. Other great works of literature have archetypes and symbols and themes, and it would be surprising if the Bible did not have this as well.
  I have a book called "Dictionary of Biblical Imagery" which analyzes and explains these archetypes, and I would recommend to anyone.
  C. T. Russell and the early Bible students, to their credit, made much use of imagery, symbols, and types in the Bible. Because of this the early Watch Towers often are written with beautiful prose, often even poetic, and appealing to the emotions. However, they also took this to excess. Russell interpreted prophecies allegorically and expected them to be fulfilled in his own day. They saw the Bible in the Great Pyramid. Stories were interpreted as types and antitypes, and applied to their own group. The JWs have taken this to an extreme where practically the whole BIble is an antitype of the JWs. This is a good example of the allegorical method leading people astray.

  Steve
• 

  metatron

  What you've pointed out used to bother me as a faithful Witness. Beyond that, I was greatly bothered by what I believe the world calls

  "deconstructionism" in which anything can mean just about anything you want it to ( maybe I'm exaggerating a little).

  Revelation 20 bothered me for decades because it seemed to plainly state eternal torment in the most plain terms available - and

  like wise the Genesis account of creation plainly suggests simple 24 hour days in context - "Evening, morning" and God takes

  the seventh day off, so you should too.

  This subject, of relative truth, is right at the heart of the Bible - but no one wants to acknowledge it, likely because they sense

  that it tends to destroy the idea of explicit revealed truth,

  metatron
• 

  Nate Merit

  Rex wrote:
  
  "The prophets fulfilled a specific purpose in scripture. Prophecy often has immediate and secondary fulfillments that are revealed in later scripture. This is why the Bible is called a progressive revelation. The apostles were revelators and thus, speaking through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit they applied previous prophecy to the events of Jesus' day. The scriptural record is complete. There are no more revelators. There are only orthodox and heretics."
  
  All of this is simply your assertions. Thats what fundiots such as yourself do. Make assertions without any evidence.
  
  You assert the prophets fulfilled a specific purpose in scripture. Demonstrate this to me Rex, dont simply assert. Do as I do and back up your claims.
  
  You assert that 'prophecy' often has an immediate and secondary fulfillment. First, Rex, demonstrate that prophecy even exists. Demonstrate that the so-called propheices in the Bible were not actually written after the fact OR that the "Life of Christ" was not simply concocted around the odd bits and pieces of the OT. You cannot demonstrate this, no one can. You lack even knowledge of basic logic. All you can do is make assertions, not provide evidence to back up your empty assertions.
  
  Demonstrate the actual existence of 'progressive revelation." You cannot.
• 

  Nate Merit

  Rex wrote:
  
  "The prophets fulfilled a specific purpose in scripture. Prophecy often has immediate and secondary fulfillments that are revealed in later scripture. This is why the Bible is called a progressive revelation. The apostles were revelators and thus, speaking through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit they applied previous prophecy to the events of Jesus' day. The scriptural record is complete. There are no more revelators. There are only orthodox and heretics."
  
  All of this is simply your assertions. Thats what fundiots such as yourself do. Make assertions without any evidence.
  
  You assert the prophets fulfilled a specific purpose in scripture. Demonstrate this to me Rex, dont simply assert. Do as I do and back up your claims.
  
  You assert that 'prophecy' often has an immediate and secondary fulfillment. First, Rex, demonstrate that prophecy even exists. Demonstrate that the so-called propheices in the Bible were not actually written after the fact OR that the "Life of Christ" was not simply concocted around the odd bits and pieces of the OT. You cannot demonstrate this, no one can. You lack even knowledge of basic logic. All you can do is make assertions, not provide evidence to back up your empty assertions.
  
  Demonstrate the actual existence of 'progressive revelation." You cannot.
• 

  Nate Merit

  Rex, None of the assertions you made can be backed up by evidence, and you haven't even tried. However, fundiots such as yourself care not one whit for evidence, facts, logic, proof. You simply assert or call names and think that constitutes a refutation.
  
  Rex, there is a man on a planet a trillion light years away who controls your every move, thought, and word via mental telepathy. It's true, oh ye of little faith.
• 

  Narkissos

  I think stev made several interesting points:

  But I think the historical-grammatical method is a good place to start for anyone in interpreting the Bible.
  
  What did the author intend to mean,
  
  and what would the original audience have understood?
  
  I think those are good questions to ask no matter what book is being read.

  That's what exegesis in the modern sense is all about -- and imo it is an absolutely necessary step, which actually implies more than the strict "historical-grammatical method" as practiced by moderate fundamentalists: historical and literary criticism is in order too.

  But necessary doesn't mean sufficient from a religious perspective.

  There are dangers to the allegorical method, and it is best to use with caution.
  
  Otherwise it can lead to excess. It can lead to flights of fancy and speculation, idiosyncratic notions, where there is no limit or control on what the interpreter can see in the Bible.
  
  The BIble can become silly puddy in the hands of an allegorist. The Bible can be made to say what ever the interpreter wants it to say.
  
  It is not so bad if the person is honest and knows that this is what they are doing, that they are attaching a private meaning different than the intended meaning of the author.
  
  It can be harmful when a preacher does it frequently, and thinks God intended it to have that meaning, and the his followers think that this intepretation is inspired by God. Then it could lead to spiritual abuse and error.
  
  On the other hand, it is likely that there is more than one sense or meaning to the Bible, and that it can be read at different levels, and has different layers of meaning.
  
  Northrop Frye, who was a literary critic, wrote books on the Bible, and how the Bible has literary archetypes and repeated themes such fall-redemption. Other great works of literature have archetypes and symbols and themes, and it would be surprising if the Bible did not have this as well.
  
  I have a book called "Dictionary of Biblical Imagery" which analyzes and explains these archetypes, and I would recommend to anyone.
  
  C. T. Russell and the early Bible students, to their credit, made much use of imagery, symbols, and types in the Bible. Because of this the early Watch Towers often are written with beautiful prose, often even poetic, and appealing to the emotions. However, they also took this to excess. Russell interpreted prophecies allegorically and expected them to be fulfilled in his own day. They saw the Bible in the Great Pyramid. Stories were interpreted as types and antitypes, and applied to their own group. The JWs have taken this to an extreme where practically the whole BIble is an antitype of the JWs. This is a good example of the allegorical method leading people astray.

  The problem imo is one of authority. As an unauthoritative reading method, allegory may be interestingly creative just as other kinds of "spiritual readings" or even "free association".

  Iow it is not either-or. The antagonism of "scientific exegesis" and "spiritual interpretation" is very helpful I guess. The former bars the latter from claiming undue authority (and thereby losing much of its creative freedom); and the latter, with its desire for meaning, stimulates the former to dig again the texts which always exceed exegesis.
• 

  Nate Merit

  Hi Narkissos.
  
  I answered these objections in the post "Once More for STEV and gomers who believe historical-grammatical method" on the first page of this section.
  
  I gotta try to find Rex's post and answer it and get moving.
  
  Thanks Narkissos.
  Nate
• 

  stev

  Narkissos

  I have noted your reply to my post, and I am in general agreement.

  Steve